tv U.S. Senate U.S. Senate CSPAN February 13, 2020 1:29pm-4:44pm EST
so what are we doing here today? it certainly isn't to rein in this president. he has not used power willy-nilly. very, very sparingly used in great contrast to the previous administration. what we're doing here today is we're trying to get our arms around the question of when is it appropriate for the president to use military force, and we all have our ideas on that. we have the words that the founding fathers left us. so we're going to debate it here today, and it's important. the unfortunate part about this is we're also sending a message to iran, and iran is listening. there is no question that they're listening to this debate. they're listening that the, what people are saying here on the floor of the senate. and one of the messages that will come out of this, the way
this is drawn is that we want, that the drafters of this want to send a message of appeasement to iran and this has been tried. it hasn't worked. the last administration bent over backwards to offer appeasement to iran. they were greatly betrayed by it. it was tried with the jcpoa, and it didn't work. the reason it didn't work is we are not dealing with people here who are acting in good faith. what we need to do is we need to send a message of firmness and not weakness, and at the end of the day when we're all done with this, there will be such a message. it needs to be a consistent and uniform message when it comes to messaging to iran, when it comes to messaging on our foreign policy as it relates to iran. but it will not be this law that is before us because it's going
to be vetoed. we all know it's going to be vetoed. it takes a two-thirds majority to override that. it's not going to happen. and so the mixed message is there. iran will listen to it and the hard-liners will take it one way, other people will take it the other, and that is not a good situation, but hopefully we'll be able to lay this out in a way that they can read between the lines and get the message that is important. the president took action that people have criticizeed here that was difficult. it was a tough decision. it was a really bad guy, a guy who was worse than osama bin laden. he was the person who was executing iran's maligned policies in the world and in the region. his killing and loss of limb have become legendary in the world today. whenever i see one of our young
men and women that are missing an arm or a leg, they owe that to general soleimani. he killed hundreds of people. he was responsible for the i.e.d. program that took the lives of so many and maimed so many of our men and women that were fighting in the middle east. and he got to the point where he was wandering around, really, with impunity and not worried about what he was doing or that anybody was going to take any action against him. let's look at the timeline over the last year. the iranians started by blowing up oil tankers. nothing was done about it. they attacked the saudi oil fields where 100 americans were working. nothing was done about it. they took down a drone of ours over international space. nothing was done about it. finally, they ratcheted up over the fall 13 attacks on u.s. soldiers at u.s. bases in iraq. these were our men and our women
that we had asked to go over there and push back against iran's attempted infiltration into iraq. 13 attacks they took. finally, on one of those attacks, somebody was killed. the president laid down a red line that if an american was killed, there was going to be a price to pay. they start -- they finally killed that person. they attacked our embassy in baghdad and attempted to set it on fire. and so eventually, the president made the choice to do what he did, and this was in response to the continual pushing of the envelope from iran and the miscalculations that iran made. this man was traveling. general soleimani was traveling. he had been traveling from place to place, putting in place final plans and coordination for the execution of an attack against
the american people. it was imminent. now, you have heard my friends here say oh, no, it wasn't imminent. we listened to the -- we listened to the intelligence. i sit on the intelligence committee. i sat through all of the briefings that were given that were at the secret level and the top secret level that were given to the people here in the body. i also sat through the ones that were given to the intelligence committee which were compartmented and much more granular. there was no doubt that this plan was planning an imminent attack to kill americans. he didn't get the chance. thank you, mr. president. thank you for what you did. now, we've heard the argument here that it wasn't imminent. this person was substantially more imminent danger to the united states of america and to americans than when osama bin laden was, but when the president of the united states, barack obama, took out osama bin laden, we all cheered it. in fact, we passed a resolution
here 100-0 commending the president of the united states for what he did. so today, mr. president, you have heard us pass such a resolution thanking you. thank you, mr. president, and farewell, general soleimani. iran, do not miscalculate and read what is happening here as capitulation or weakness or appeasement. it is not. it is a disagreement between this branch of government, the legislative branch, and our second branch of government, the executive branch, as to how we should defend ourselves, but make no mistake about it. we will defend ourselves. in america, we operate under the rule of law. this bill that's in front of us that we are debating today will not become law. it will not be part of the body of law which we live by.
it will be vetoed. iran, take note. if you continue on the path that you are on with your maligned activities, it is going to take you to a very bad place. i'd urge a no vote. i understand how this is going to come out. i will be standing here again to sustain the president's veto, and it will be sustained. thank you, mr. president. i yield the floor. a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator for idaho. mr. risch: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the 1:45 vote that was scheduled commence now. the presiding officer: without objection. the clerk will read the joint resolution for the third time. the clerk: senate joint resolution 68, to direct the
removal of the united states armed forces from hostilities against the islamic republic of iran that have not been authorized by congress. the presiding officer: the question occurs on the passage of s.j. res. 68 as amended. a senator: mr. president, i ask for the yeas and nays. the presiding officer: is there a sufficient second? there appears to be. the clerk will call the roll. vote:
the presiding officer: are there any senators in the chamber wishing to change their vote? if not, the yeas are 55. the nays are 45. the joint resolution as amended is passed. mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the clerks be allowed to make technical corrections to the engrossing of amendments s.
j. res. 68. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed toll executive session and consider calendar number 384. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, the judiciary, robert anthony mall loyal of the virgin islands to be judge for the district court of the virgin islands. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of robert anthony molloy of the virgin islands to be judge for the district court of the virgin islands signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it.
the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar number 491. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomple nation. united states tax court, travis grieves of the district of columbia to be a district judge. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the cloture motion will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators i in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate -- the judiciary, sylvia carreno-coll of puerto rico to be united states district for the district of puerto rico.
we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate nomination of sylvia carreno-coll of puerto rico to be united states district judge for the district of puerto rico. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 420. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination -- the bill. the clerk: calendar 420, s. 3275, a bill to amend title 18 united states code to protect pain capable unborn children and
to other purposes. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 420, s. 3275, a bill to amend title 18 united states code to protect pain capable unborn children and for other purposes signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i withdraw the motion to proceed. the presiding officer: the senator has that right. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to calendar number 17. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the motion to proceed. the clerk: motion to proceed to calendar number 17, s. 311, a bill to amend title 18 united states code to prohibited health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion.
mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby debate on the motion to proceed to calendar number 17, a bill to amend -- health care practitioner from failing to exercise the proper degree of care in the case of a child who survives an abortion or attempted abortion signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the realding -- reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i with graw the -- with draw the motion to proceed. i move to proceed to executive session and consider calendar 569. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, department of the interior, katherine macgregor of pennsylvania to be gepty --
deputy secretary of the interior. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate on the nomination of katharine macgregor of pennsylvania to be deputy secretary of the interior signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i move to have proceed to legislative session. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. mr. mcconnell: i move to proceed to executive session to consider calendar number 416. the presiding officer: the question is on the motion. all in favor say aye. those opposed no. the ayes appear to have it. the ayes do have it. the motion is agreed to. the clerk will report the nomination. the clerk: nomination, united states tax court, travis grieves of the district of columbia to be a district court for the united states tax court. mr. mcconnell: i send a cloture motion to the desk. the presiding officer: the clerk will report the cloture motion. the clerk: cloture motion, we
the undersigned senators in accordance with the provisions of rule 22 of the standing rules of the senate do hereby move to bring to a close debate debate on the nomination of travis greaves of the district of columbia to be a judge of the united states tax court signed by 17 senators as follows. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the reading of the names be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent the mandatory quorum calls be waived. the presiding officer: without objection. the motion to proceed to calendar 420 was not agreed to. it was only made.
communications commission, and swamp creatures. we've all heard a lot about 5g. 5g is just incredibly fast internet. it'll make possible things like driverless cars, telemedicine, the internet of things. now, i want to caution all of us, mr. chairman. these things are not going to happen overnight. in fact, some parts of our country already have 5g -- and we don't have driverless cars. and the internet of things. and long-distance surgery.
these innovations are going to happen over a long period of time. and, in the meantime, there's going to be at that lot of hype from the telecommunications companies. why? because they want to sell you 5g. and they're going to tell you 5g can do all these incredible things. they're going to tell you that 5g can grow hair, that 5g can cure erectile dysfunction, that 5g can do this and it can do that. look, i wanting to on record as saying 5g is going to be extraordinary. but it's not going to happen overnight. and the emergency that some of our telecommunications companies are trying to create is not nearly the emergency that really exists, because they have something they want to sell you. i'm not putting them down.
that's free enterprise. how does 5g work? well, it's wireless technology. and i have 5g on my phone and you have 5g on your phone. we communicate, whether it's 5g technology or otherwise, through radio waves. a radio wave goes from my phone to your phone and it carries data. it's called electromagnetic radiation. all it really is s. is radio waves. there are all different kinds of radio waves. depends on the frequency. now, you know who owns those radio waves? the f.c.c. doesn't. the telecommunications companies, which use those radio waves, don't. the federal government doesn't, except in this sense --
you own those radio waves. the american taxpayer owns those radio waves, and they are incredibly valuable. because telecommunications companies line up when the f.c.c. has new radio waves available for them. they line up to bid on those radio waves, which they can use. we call that spectrum. now, there's a certain type of radio wave going through the air, or spectrum, if you will, that is perfect for 5g. it's like goldie locks porridge. it's not too hot, it's not too cold, it's just right. and the telecommunication companies want to use that
c-band, we call it, or midrange spectrum. i'm going to call it c-band. they want the f.c.c. to license it to them. well, right now using that spectrum, that c-band -- remember, this is the -- these are the radio waves, the spectrum that are just perfect for 5g. right now, using this c-band spectrum are a number of satellite companies, most of which are foreign-owned. the major satellite companies that are using it right now happen to be domiciled in luxembourg, a wonderful country, wonderful people. you know what they paid to use that spectrum? -- to the american people. nothing. zero. nada.
you say, well, how did that happen? kennedy, you just told me that these radio waves are very valuable and the telecommunications are -- companies are lined up to lease them. how did the foreign satellite companies get the c-band for nothing that they're using right now? i don't know. it wasn't this f.c.c. but some f.c.c. just gave it to them. said, here ... use it for free. i wasn't there. i'm not necessarily criticizing them. i'm just telling you, they got it for nothing. but they didn't get a license. they don't have a lease. they have a frizzel to use it. -- they have a privilege to use it. and in the fine print of the document that gives them this privilege, at any time the f.c.c. can take it back. because the foreign satellite companies don't have a property
interest. they don't own it, they don't have a lease, they didn't pay anything for it. they just have the privilege to use it until the f.c.c. wants to take it back. now, the foreign satellite companies -- and i'm not criticizing them. god bless them. they're making a lot of money using this spectrum that belongs to the american taxpayer for free. well, this is the way it's been for a while, but now some telecommunications companies, like verizon and others, good companies, they said, we need that c-band, f.c.c. we need that c-band to use for 5g. well, the satellite companies -- i'll call them luxembourg satellite companies, once again, good people in luxembourg, good people. they say, well, we're using the c-band right now. we don't want to give it up to the telecommunications
companies. but we'll make you a deal. they went to the f.c.c. the satellite companies said to the f.c.c., we're using the c-band right now, and even though we didn't pay a single solitaire dime for it -- solitary dime for it we know the telecommunications companies want it to implement 5g. so here's what we'll do. you, f.c.c., give us the c-band. give it to us, and we will turn around and make sure that the telecommunication companies get to use it. we'll lease it to them. and the amount of money that the foreign satellite companies would have made was about $70 billion. i call it the bank job robbery. remember that movie came out in
2008, the bank job? it was a 2008 heist movie. it was about the 1971 baker street robbery in london. i call this proposal the bank job robbery. i don't see how the foreign satellite companies made the proposal with a straight face. give us this c-and in belongs to the american people -- give us this c-band that belongs to the american people. just give it to us. we're going to sell it to the telecommunication companies and pocket the $07 billion. and you know what? our f.c.c. almost did it. they were this close. and they said, oh, we got to do this, because we -- we got to get this c-band to the telecommunication companies because it's an emergency and we've got to get 5g tomorrow. and so, let's just give the
satellite companies that are using it now, didn't pay a red dime for it, let's give them the spectrum that belongs to the american people and let them sell it to the telecommunications and pocket the $70 billion because our hair is on fire, and we have to do it. swamp creatures. they came this close to stealing $70 billion from the american people. but they didn't pull it off. because a number of members of the united states senate and the united states house of representatives started raising fresh hell -- fresh hell. i went to see the president of the united states. i said, mr. president, you know what's going on here? here you are every day saying buy american, we have to take care of americans first. doesn't mean we don't care about the rett of the world. but we got to buy american and
your f.c.c. over here is giving away this c-band to luxembourg satellite companies. he said, what in god's name -- he was like rocketman. he got mad. i don't speak for the president, but i'm just telling you what happened. so the f.c.c., to their credit, they backed off. no, we're not going to give it away. we're going to do what they should have done in the first place. and that's auction it off. they're going to hold an auction like an ebay. and these satellite companies -- or, rather, these telecommunication companies are come in and bid. and if the f.c.c. would do it right, we would take in $70 billion for the american taxpayer and we could use that money to implement rural broadband. and then everybody is happy. and it would have been great.
but, no ... here comes the baby driver. you see that movie, baby driver? now there is a new proposal on the table. the chairman of our f.c.c., who is a good map, by the way -- i'm going to come back to him -- he's come 7:00 -- come up with a new proposal. the chairman says we're going to bid it out. but we're going to take $15 billion of the money that comes in and we're going to give it to the foreign satellite companies. for what? they don't own it. they don't have a license. they just have a privilege. he's going to give $5 billion to them to relocate to different spectrum and then he's going to give them $10 billion -- that's nine zeros -- in walking around money, just to go away.
that's why i call it the baby driver heist. that was a great movie. did you see that? wonderful movie. let me say this about the f.c.c. chairman. he is a friend of mine and he is smart as a whip. he went to harvard undergrad, honors degree. chicago law school. chicago law review. worked as an executive at verizon communications for awhile. i consider him a friend, and i have the utmost respect for him, and i thank him for finally agreeing to do a public cost and not giving the c-band weap to the -- away to the foreign satellite company.
as much as i respect the chairman, i wouldn't take him with me if i was going to buy a car because he'd pay the full sticker price. if i needed somebody to explain string theory or the doppler effect or quorum engineering or genome sequence i probably would go to the chairman of the f.c.c. because he is that smart, but i don't agree with him that he made a good deal to give $10 billion away to these foreign satellite companies, $10 billion of american taxpayer money. and the chairman is going to present that to vote on it on february 28, and he says he's got the votes to pass it. i can tell you this it's not going to be unanimous. and it's not going to be noncontroversial to give away $15 billion to somebody who doesn't have a property interest he says we've got to do it
because we're in a -- we're in a race with china. okay. i agree with that. and your point is? he says well, if we don't do it, the satellite companies are going to sue us. that's another straw man. let me tell you something, the f.c.c. gets sued every day. you know what the f.c.c. chairman needs to tell the satellite companies? you need me to draw you a map to the courthouse? go sue. we get sued every day. but i'm not going to give you $15 billion to go away, of taxpayer money, because it's wrong. and i'm not sure the f.c.c. has the authority to do this. the last time i checked, it was congress that appropriates money, not the federal communications commission.
now i told you that the f.c.c. chairman's proposal is to give the foreign satellite companies $5 billion to buy new satellites and to move to a new spectrum and $10 billion just to go away, because, oh, we're scared of a lawsuit. we're scared of a lawsuit. i don't know how he arrived at $10 billion to give to them. i wish somebody would give me $10 billion. why not $11 billion? why not $8 billion? why not $7 billion? no explanation. we're just going to give them $10 billion of taxpayer money, and they're going to go away. now of course the satellite companies, they're happy as clams. they're happy as a gopher in soft dirt because they're getting $10 billion for nothing, and they are also
getting $5 billion to buy new satellites. but if you check, all the satellites now are worn out, so they'd have to buy new satellites any way, 5-g or not. the f.c.c. needs to wait. on february 28 they need to announce and vote to have the public auction as they have promised. it will be held in december of this year, but there's absolutely not a single solitary reason why the chairman of the f.c.c. has to put a vote in front of the f.c.c. to give away $15 billion of taxpayer money. we can negotiate a better deal, mr. chairman. we can negotiate a better deal. the chairman of the f.c.c. does not need to become known as the $15 billion man. he needs to hold up and let's talk to the satellite p companies and negotiate a better
deal. now if he's not willing to do that, he needs to at least tell president trump, because you know who's going to get blamed for this? the president. it won't be his fault, but he's going to get blamed for it because it happened on his watch. and here he is, out talking about, you know, the american economy and we've got to protect our economy and we've got to buy american first. it doesn't mean we don't love the rest of the world, but his f.c.c. is just giving away $15 billion of taxpayer money, of taxpayer money to our friends in foreign satellite companies. and the president will get blamed, so i'm hoping the f.c.c. at least goes to see him and tell him what they're going to do. because when the american public finds out about this, you're not going to be able to find the f.c.c. members who came up with this idea. you're not going to be able to find them with a flashlight,
with a map, with a search party. you won't be able to find them with google. they're going to be hiding. it's an embarrassment. now they may have the votes to do this, mr. president, but i'm not giving up. i've got a bill along with senator schumer -- yes, chuck and i are working on a bill together. senator cantwell, senator schatz, and we're going to have some others on the bill that says, look, this is congress' decision, not f.c.c.'s decision. and it would allocate a much more modest sum to these foreign satellite companies. and i'd like the f.c.c., if it would, to step back, continue on with its auction planning, and give us a chance to negotiate on behalf of the
american taxpayer. i'm going to close with this point, mr. chairman. not a single day passes in this chamber that i don't hear one of us, democrats or republicans, talking about the deficits. and, boy, are they high, $23 trillion and climbing. we borrow $a billion a -- we borrow $1.4 billion a day, how much more we spend than take in. we are mortgaging our kids' future, and everybody talks about it. and we've got to do something about it because we're like a problem gambler chases his losses. and we, some say we're like a drunk sailor. but we're worse than a drunk sailor. a drunk sailor stops spending when he runs out of money. we don't.
we just borrow it. and here we are in the middle of all of this, our federal communications commission is going to give away $15 billion, and our chairman henceforth will be known as the $15 billion man. if they do this without telling the president, without consulting with congress and without trying to negotiate a better deal for the american taxpayer, then we ought to change their name from the federal communications commission to the federal sucker commission, because that's all they are. i suggest the absence of a quorum, mr. president. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: the senator from oklahoma. mr. lankford: i ask that the quorum call be lifted. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. lankford: mr. president, in 1924, oklahoma was a very young state. a young lady named aida was born in oklahoma. you would get the joke if you were from oklahoma, this young
lady was named aida born in chicasha. she was the val victorian of his high school. she went to one college and transferred to another college and graduated with honors in 1945. she dreamed of being a lawyer. she had graduated with honors, she had all the credentials to be able to do it, but she had one big problem. she was black. and in oklahoma in the 1940's there were no law schools that would allow a black student to attend. so an oklahoma policy was to help black students that wanted to be a lawyer to leave the state and to study somewhere else. she really didn't want to do that. she graduated from the great
langston university and had a great education there and had every ably to do that -- ably to do that. she interviewed with the university of oklahoma and went through the process to get into the university of oklahoma law school. she was found to be fully qualified, but the problem was, again, she was black. and it wasn't just a problem at the university of oklahoma. at that time there was state law that did not allow black students and white students to be able to study together and certainly not to be able to study law together. so she did a radical thing. on april 6, 1946, she filed a lawsuit against the state of oklahoma saying that she wanted to be able to study law at the very good university of oklahoma law school. and a young lawyer took up her
case. a gentleman named thurgood marshall took up her case to be able to argue her case. they lost and took it to the state supreme court where they lost, lost, and lost, and then they took it into federal court, saying constitutionally, the constitution of america and no state of the united states could block a student from studying law simply because they were black. they won that case. promptly returning back to oklahoma to study. the oklahoma legislator put together a new law school and called it langston law school and opened up a room and put in a few books and said, there's your law school. thurgood marshall and aida did
not accept that nor should they have and started the process again of saying we can't have a separate but, quote, unquote, equal law school in oklahoma. they argued it in state courts, ending up again, heading all the way back to the supreme court. but before it got to the supreme court, oklahoma would lose again in front of the same nine justices, they determined that they would break and they would give. and on june 18, 1949, more than three years after she started the process of getting into law school, she was admitted into the university of oklahoma law school where she was gifnt a seat in -- given a seat in the back of the room with a sign directly in front much her that read colors only. and she could sit in that row in the back of the room. by 1950, just the next year, those barriers had come down.
in august of 1952, aida fischer graduated from the university of oklahoma law school and became a lawyer. she set the pays for what thousands and thousands of other lawyers behind her now get the chance of having that same joy. interestingly enough, if you were to visit the courthouse in oklahoma city, the federal district court there, if you were there a couple of years ago you would have bumped into victory miles lagrange, that african american judge, if you went there, you would have budget into eric jones, the pace was set for her by aida fischer decades before. quite frankly, we can't even fathom that in this current time
period how different things really are. but it's interesting to notice that that generation and that time period of some ladies who made a difference in oklahoma. because at the same time aida, she was at langston university, another lady named clara was at langston university at the time. she was known affectionately as clara looper. clara was at langston university in the 1940's, she finished and got her bachelor's and master degree. she became the youth council leader for the ncaa in 1957 and in 1958, she helped her students, her youth that she worked with do a radical thing to deal with segregation in oklahoma. she talked about nonviolence and
she talked about how to be able to step out and take a stand and she and a group of kids went to cat's drug store in oklahoma city and sat down at the counter and ordered cokes, and they sat there all day never being served all day. and it was the first nationwide, what we know of, as the sit-in movement. young men and women, african american, would go and sit down at a place and just wait to be served. and it started a movement that shook the nation into this issue of segregation. those two ladies made a remarkable change for the better in our history. clara looper and what she did, aida fischer and what she did, and as we look back on tomorrow,
it's frederick dug douglas' birthday and celebrate black history month. we can go back as far as you want to and talk about the great frederick douglass. in oklahoma there are black leaders today that are making history that 50 years from now and 100 years from now we will be talking about them like we talk about clara looper and aida fischer, we will in 100 years talk about kevin perry and the work he and his son have done in radio, what they have done in real estate, what they have done in leadership in our state. russell perry was a barrier breaker. he was a cabinet member for a governor who is a great leader in our state. we'll be talking about dr. kidd
smith, the current president of langston university and what he has done at langston and the leadership mod every model. we will talk about the race massacre commission and those individuals around tulsa that gathered around to say what are we doing to bring a community together and break down the barriers of sag gaition and racism that still exists. we'll be talking for years about hanbel johnson, he's a brilliant man and lawyer and leader in his community. we'll be talking about wayl an cuban, an officer who talks about helping those around him. we'll talk for years about terry munday and what he's done on the radio. we'll talk for years about pastors that are scattered all over our state that in the
african american community they have made a very real difference in the lives of a lot of families. we'll talk for years, quite frankly, about dr. lester shaw and what he has done at pocket full of hope and how he has helped so many kids. he has for years mentored students and has had a 100% success rate year after year after year of just loving on kids and helping them in every way that he can. and for dr. shaw, he's made a remarkable difference in our state. we'll talk for years about clarence hill and what he's done for race relations in our state and how he has quietly brought people together to sit down and develop friendships that should have existed long ago. we'll talk for years about stephon moore and his family, what they have done in the inner city, what they have done to be able to pull kids out and to be able to look at them eyeball to
eyeball and give them a sense of hope and a sense of joy. you see, in our state and in around my city and oklahoma city where douglas high school is, february is not just another month, we understand what black history really means because we are leaving it with aida fischer and clara luper, and i'm proud to say i've gout neighbors and -- got neighbors and friends around me who continue continuee history and i'm grateful to call them friends and i'm grateful we have the ability to celebrate frederick douglass' birthday together. with that, mr. president, i yield back. i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll.
ms. ernst: mr. president? i ask that the quorum call be vitiated. the presiding officer: without objection. ms. ernst: thank you, mr. president. and, mr. president, there's really no way to sugarcoat it. washington's budget process is broken. every year it's like clockwork. first the president submits is his budget, like we saw this past monday. then the house tears it up -- no pun intended, really. they ultimately failed to pass
their own budget, and then congress kicks the can down the road before finally cramming through a budget-busting bill at the 11th hour. there's no question this process is dysfunctional. but maybe more importantly, its lack of transparency allows wasteful spending to continue year after year unchecked. and, folks, this cycle has to end. we have to start chipping away at this ballooning debt, and we have to work toward cutting our government's most wasteful spending. one of the best ways to do this is to call it out when we see it. as some of you may know, every month i give out my squeal award to call out the parts of our government that are wasting
hardworking americans' tax dollars. i highlight the most egregious waste found within the bowels of washington, and then i put it forward and offer up a solution to stop it. take, for example, what i like to call the binge-buying bureaucrats. every year at the end of the september, bureaucrats charge billions of dollars to taxpayers during washington's annual use it or lose it spending spree. we've seen compulsive buying include items like millions and millions of dollars of lobster and crab. we've even seen spending on games and toys or even something like a $12,000 fooz table.
foozball. is that what we need in washington, d.c.? foozball. i've also called out washington's boondoggles that are just bottomless money pits for projects that never really even get off the ground. and the contractors that are working on these boondoggles, the ones who are failing at their jobs, guess what? they are getting big, fat bonuses. a primary example of this egregious misuse of tax dollars is what i like to call the moondaigle. the moondoggle. right there. there you have it. look at that. the moondoggle. i'm talking about the rockets that are being developed for
nasa's next moon mission. this project is billions of dollars over budget and years, folks, not months, but years behind schedule due to poor performance. yet nasa still handed out generous bonuses totaling over $300 million to the contractor that is working on the project. folks, it's absurd. this is absurd. and we've got to put an end to it. and, thankfully, i believe we might actually be on a path that will do that. taxpayers should be encouraged that all this squealing has finally been heard at the other end of pennsylvania avenue. both of these squeal award
recipients -- the binge-buying bureaucrats and the infamous moondoggle -- have been targeted by president trump in his latest budget proposal. within its pages, the president states that his administration is committed to stopping improper end-of-the-year spending and will begin closely scrutinizing how money is being spent at the end of the fiscal year to curtail waste. the president's budget also calls out the poor performance of the nasa contractor and proposes management improvements that would shave $300 million off the cost of the mission. and this is encouraging, no doubt about it. but in order to codify these efforts, i'm putting forward a package of commonsense reforms
to join the president in urging congress to actually address washington's spending addiction. get our budget process back on track and ensure iowans understand exactly how their hard-earned dollars are being spent. in order to force congress to do its job and become a better steward of taxpayers' money, i have introduced the make sense act. this comprehensive package combines five simple ideas i have previously introduced. first off, it requires an annual report listing every government-funded project that is $1 billion or more over budget or five years or more behind schedule. second, it requires every project supported with federal funds to include a price tag
that is easily available for taxpayers. third, it eliminates use-it-or-lose-it impulse purchases by limiting an agency's spending in the last two months of the fiscal year to no more than the average spent in the other months. fourth, it prohibits congress from going on recess without passing a budget on time. and, fifth, and lastly, it prohibits congress from getting paid without passing a budget. -- on time. and, folks, these are not new or radical reforms. many folks in the senate and in the house have proposed various versions of these items
recognizing the serious problem that we face. like the bill title says, these ideas just make sense. if hardworking iowa families have to manage their budgets, we really should expect washington to do the same. so let's get at it. thank you, mr. president. i would notice the -- i would notice the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
the presiding officer: the senator from utah. mr. romney: i ask unanimous consent that we suspend the roll call. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. romney: mr. president, i also ask unanimous consent that the senate proceed to legislative session for a period of morning business with senators permitted to speak therein for up to ten minutes each. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. romney: thank you. mr. president, i rise today to mark the 150th anniversary of the first ballot cast by a woman in the united states under an equal suffrage law. i'm proud that this remarkable milestone occurred in my home state of utah. the fight for the right to vote for all americans, regardless of gender, race, or class, was achieved through efforts large and small and through great sacrifice. suffrage is the freedom to vote, to reaffirm the solemn duty of
the citizen in a representative democracy. when i vote, i remember the sacrifice of men and women in uniform, those who have won and preserved freedom for us in the past and those who preserve freedom for us today. my vote is a recognition of that sacrifice. it is right and fitting that every american, male and female, has that same privilege. our great state of utah was settled by pioneers like brigham young, who led his people to a new land in search of liberty and freedom from oppression. while the pioneers and settlers of utah secured freedom of territory, religion, and thought, the voices of women were still not heard when it often mattered most -- during the democratic selection of their government leaders. seriph young, like her grand uncle before her, endeavored to
chart a different course. in the early morning of february 14, 1860, she became the first woman to vote in the united states of america. on that election day in salt lake city, 24 other women joined her in casting their ballots. then in the next election, 2,000 more women followed their leader and exercised their equal suffrage rights. the voices of the few set in motion a monumental shift in our nation's history. 24 years before the 19th amendment to grant equal suffrage for women was ratified, utah once again made history by electing the nation's first female state senator, martha hughes cannon. cannon did not hesitate to pursue her own passage. after receiving her undergraduate degree in chem century, she went on to learn degrees in oration, medicine and pharmacy at a time when few women pursued advanced
education. at a suffrage gist and teacher and mother, she defeated her own husband at the ballot box to become the first female state senator? united in -- in united states s. soon we will honor the tremendous contributions that martha and all women made, as we welcome her has a new addition to statutory all in the capitol. the symbols we choose matter a great deal and the bronze rendering of cannon will serve as an enduring tribute to the efforts of all suffragists. to all the wom -- to all women who have led and continue to lead by example, we thank you. mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the judiciary committee be discharged from further consideration and the senate now proceed to senate resolution 475. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 475, recognizing the leading
role of of utahns in the fight r women's suffrage, and so forth. the presiding officer: without objection, the committee is discharged. and the senate will proceed to the measure. mr. romney: i ask unanimous consent that the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and that the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. romney: i suggest the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call: .
quorum call: a senator: mr. president. the presiding officer: . senator from texas. mr. cornyn: mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that the quorum call be be dispense -- quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. cornyn: mr. president, earlier this week the senate judiciary committee held a hearing to discuss the level of care babies who are born alive should receive. you heard me correctly. we had a hearing in the senate
judiciary committee to discuss the level of medical care a baby that's born alive should receive. as heartbreaking as it is to even ask that question as if there were more than one option, this is a real debate and something that needs to be paid attention to. there are actually some folks who think it's appropriate for doctors to provide something less than the highest standard of care to babies who survive abortions, thereon are those who believe that babies who survive abortions should receive the same level of medical assistance as any other baby. that's certainly where i stand. i believe that all life is precious and that every baby deserves a fighting chance. i can't imagine that there's a
divergence of view on that topic. and, of course, public opinion polling, for what's that worth, shows that the vast majority of americans agree. last year a poll found that more than three-quarters of americans say they support medical treatment for babies who survive abortions. it's hard for me to believe there would be 25% on the other side of that. but suffice it to say the vast majority agree with that proposition, the same standard medical care should apply. unfortunately, there are that same 25% in government who are in high-ranking positions and yield a great deal of influence on that decision. the virginia governor made comments which were deeply disturbing about how to care or, rather, not care for certain
newborn babies. he was caught during an interview. i would like to think he misspoke, but he certainly didn't claim that. this is actually his view. he said that after the baby was delivered, it would be kept comfortable. the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desire and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mother. what would be the subject of that discussion? what the baby would live or die? presumably so. instead of providing prompt care to save the baby, governor north ram who is a pediatrician,
he believes you should sit down and decide whether to let the child live or die. that is not health care. that is infanticide. in response to governor northram's comments, which apparently he spoke not just for himself, but a significant segment, maybe 25% in the poll i mentioned earlier, our colleague from nebraska, senator sasse, introduced a bill called the born alive survivor's protection act. this legislation is straightforward. it would require doctors treat babies who survive abortion with the same lifesaving care that other infants receive. it sounds like common sense, right? well, common sense, apparently, is not all that common in some corners. you might believe there are already some protections that exist for in a newborn baby. that's got to be the law
already, right? well, sadly not. there are no federal laws requiring health care providers to care for these babies just as they would any other infant in their care. sadly, many of our democratic colleagues in the senate are just fine with that. when the senate voted on this legislation last year, 44 democrats voted against it -- against it. but for those of us who align with more of the 75% of americans who believe all babies deserve equal care, we are not fine with that. this legislation would build on the born alive infant protection act of 2002, that actually passed the senate unanimously at the time. that bill clarified that every infant born alive in any stage of development is a person. again, a statement of the obvious. regardless of the manner in which they were born.
now it's time to clarify that each person will receive appropriate medical care no matter what their circumstances, how they happen to be delivered and born. one of our witnesses in today's -- in tuesday's hearing was dr. robin perochi, a neonatologist. the doctor concluded, we are always obligated to care whether or not we have the ability to heal. i agree with her. there should only be one side to this question, the side that advocates for equal medical care for newborns, the side that believes that all infants deserves a fighting chance, the side that understands that life is precious and must be
protected. mr. president, when i attended this hearing, it reminded me of an article that was written in back in 2004 by one of my favorite writers, peggy noonan. she was talking about a presidential candidate, general wesley clark, running that year for the democratic nomination for president. and she quotes an interview that general clark had with the newspaper -- the publisher of the manchester union leader, joseph mcquaid. here's how the conversation went. general clark says, i don't think you should get the law involved in abortion. mcquaid said at all. clark said, no.
mcquaid said, late-term abortions, no limits? clark said, no. mcquaid said, anything up to delivery? clark said no, no. mcquaid, anything up to the head coming out of the womb? clark said, i say that it's up to the woman and her doctor, her conscience. you do not put the law in there. mr. president, back when the supreme court decided roe v. wade, it made clear that at some point, once the fetus is viable, you're dealing with more than just the interest of the mother. and i know abortion is a whole -- the whole debate over abortion is divisive in this country, but at some point we have to realize you're not just talking about one person, but two people and each of those
individuals has rights and the state certainly has an interest in protecting a vulnerable child. in my state in texas, and i dare say in florida and every other state in the country, we have child protection laws in place which say, if you witness child abuse or neglect, you have a legal duty to report it. again, the law says, if you see a child that's being abused or neglected, you have a duty to report it, and if you don't do it, you are guilty of a crime. how in the world we would -- we could reconcile these ideas that it's somehow okay to deliver a child even though it's a botched abortion and not have a legal, much less moral, duty to care for that child is
irreconcilable. i think it's really important for the senate to stand on the side of life. this is not an abortion issue. this is a matter of equal protection of the laws and whether we are going to fulfill our duty to protect the most vulnerable among us, the children who might otherwise be abused or certainly neglected. mr. president, i'm proud to cosponsor this legislation and to stand up firmly on the side of our most vulnerable citizens. i yield the floor and i would note the absence of a quorum. the presiding officer: the clerk will call the roll. quorum call:
mr. mcconnell: mr. president? the presiding officer: the majority leader. mr. mcconnell: i ask consent that further proceedings under the quorum call be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 369, h.r. 2744. the presiding officer: the
clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 369, h.r. 2744, an act to authorize the administrator of the united states agency for international development to prescribe the manner in which programs of the agency are identified overseas and for other purposes. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the committee-reported substitute amendment be agreed to, the bill as amended be considered read a third time and passed, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the immediate consideration of calendar number 419, s. 3239. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: calendar number 419, s. 3239, a bill to designate the head quarters building of the department of transportation located at 1200 new jersey
avenue southeast in washington, d.c. as the william t. coleman, jr. federal building. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the bill be considered read a third time and passed and the motion to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the commerce committee be discharged from further consideration of the -- and the senate now proceed to s. res. 490. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 490 congratulating the kansas city chiefs on their victory in super bowl 54. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection, the committee is discharged. the senate will proceed. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the blunt amendment to the preamble be agreed to, the preamble as amended be agreed to, the blunt amendment to the title be agreed to and the
motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 503 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 503 commending the university of west florida organize naughts football team for its athletic association division two national championship victory. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the senate proceed to the consideration of s. res. 504 submitted earlier today. the presiding officer: the clerk will report. the clerk: senate resolution 504
honoring the memories of the victims of the senseless attack at marjory stoneham douglas high school on february 14, 2018. the presiding officer: is there objection to proceeding to the measure? without objection. mr. mcconnell: i ask unanimous consent the resolution be agreed to, the preamble be agreed to, and the motions to reconsider be considered made and laid upon the table with no intervening action or debate. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: now, mr. president, i ask unanimous consent that when the senate completes its business today, it adjourn to then convene for pro forma sessions only with no businessenning -- business being conducted on the following dates and times and following each poe forma session, the senate adjourn until the next pro forma session. monday, february 17, at 1:45 p.m. thursday, february 20 at 2:30 p.m. further, when the senate adjourns on thursday, february 20, it will next convene at 3:00 p.m. on monday, february 24. further, following the prayer and pledge, the morning hour be
deemed expired, the journal of proceedings be approved to date, the time for the two leaders be reserved for their use later in the day. further, following leader remarks, the senate proceed to executive session and resume consideration of the molloy nomination. finally, i ask that the cloture motions filed during today's session ripen at 5:30 p.m. monday, february 24. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. mcconnell: so for the information of all senators, senator baldwin will be recognized on monday, the 24th following the prayer and pledge to deliver washington's farewell address. if there's no further business to come before the senate, i ask it stand adjourned under the previous order. the presiding officer: the senate is adjourned until 1:45 mr. schumer: i ask unanimous
consent the quorum be dispensed with. the presiding officer: without objection. mr. schumer: madam president, today the senate will vote on a today the senate will vote on a today the senate will vote on bipartisan war powers resolution offered by senator kane directing the president to terminate the use of hostilities. against republic of iran. the constitution is clear. congress has the power to declare war. the president has no authority